Bioballs outcompeteing LR?

[clayswim]

Newcommers may take the exaggertion as fact, pass it on, ect...

Yeah, that's a tough one. On one hand you're completely right, a lot of rumors get started by oversimplifying basically true statements. To make matters worse these statements are then mutated into who knows what; as happens to most rumors. On the other hand you have the great majority of hobbyists out there (fewer on RF) that will never research the finer details about their hobby. Often the only way to reach them is to make things quick and simple and in terms they'll pay attention to. I'm not suggesting in any way that these people are stupid or incapable of learning, they usually just don't care about it. On that "other" big site I got burned out trying to help people because no matter how desperate they seemed for help, they never wanted to hear any details about what they were doing wrong and how to fix it. On top of that you have other newbies spreading false rumors and ill-conceived ideas. I agree though, we do have to watch how we word our posts.

I fell victim to the same thing about 5 years ago...right at the peak of the sandbed craze

Funny, that debate is still very much alive for freshwater planted tanks. A very different set of variables though. Then again I guess it's still going strong in reef tanks too

Clayton

 

[MikeS]

Yeah, that's a tough one. On one hand you're completely right, a lot of rumors get started by oversimplifying basically true statements. To make matters worse these statements are then mutated into who knows what; as happens to most rumors. On the other hand you have the great majority of hobbyists out there (fewer on RF) that will never research the finer details about their hobby.

well, there is very little one can to to help those who do not care to do the research on the hobby....research=knowledge=success in this hobby, the more you aquire the more sucess you will have...the best we can do is strive not to be a part of the problem of misinformation, however...

MikeS

 

[mojoreef]

You have to be careful when getting into the long explanations to though Mike. Some of this stuff is very difficult, makes my head spin just trying to remember it, You dont want to loose folks either. I guess somewhere between the simplified version and the detailed explanation is the sweetspot, I try to stay with in that zone as best as I can, but it can be tough sometimes.
You would be surprised how many folks read and learn from good conversations like this one though, at worst in spawns a whole new set of questions.

So anyway if you two a finished singing kumbya to each other (ROFL) lets get into bacterial populations!! I will start. 1...2...3...4...5



MIke

 

[NaH2O]

when dealing with newcommers to the hobby, maybe we need to be more careful about how we word things. An oversimplification or exaggeration of an idea to make a point may be very counterproductive in the long run, as this is how myths and misinformation are fueled in the hobby. Newcommers may take the exaggertion as fact, pass it on, ect...next thing you know, you have guys like mojo sitting up late at night typing away trying to dispell these myths, suffering kidney damage from all the coffee he's drinking....it's a bad deal :lol: Clay, please don't think for a minute that I'm criticizing you at all...I have no room whatsoever to do so as I'm as equally guilty of oversimplifying this issue as you are. However, we both need to perhaps be more careful in how we present things to newcomers...I fell victim to the same thing about 5 years ago...right at the peak of the sandbed craze, I was fed enough exaggerations and oversimplifications on that topic that I bought into the idea wholesale...I have learned much since then and I'm seeing how I was led down a potentially bad path due to all of that...

I think it would be safe to point out to newbies, that the answer is a complex one, and give the basic facts. Point them in the direction of threads, like this one, because you don't know - maybe that newbie has a good understanding of science......he/she just hasn't thought about applying it to a reef tank. I think when we start looking into the microbial processes in the tanks, everything gets complicated. Sometimes, it is difficult to get a thorough enough answer on the more complex topics without writing a book to make yourself understood.

Ok...since the majority of us all seem to be on the same page on the orgional topic at hand, there are some more details of all this I'd like to further explore...like bacterial popuations...I'll do it tomorrow after I have some rest and time to think...

MikeS

How's this for oversimplification - bacterial population size is based on the available food source . Careful on that thinking thing.....I'd hate for you to get hurt - LOL.

edit: Now that I see mojo started the population count, I'll add some. 6.....7.....8.....9....10.....11.....12.....13.....

 

[Boomer]

Nikki-Mike

bacterial population size is based on the available food source

Yup, it is mostly a function of DOC but there is middle ground., ie. to much pop goes down, to little pop goes down. Also high "food sources" for one bact often inhibits pop densities of another in the chain cycle, i.e., NH3/NH4+----> NO2--->NO3

I have some rest and time to think...

Rest and think that is not allowed

I'll be gone till Sunday so you are on your own. We are working on a new still Please do not make any errors, that will I will not have to read or type anything :lol:

 

[Krish]

Previously posted by Clayswim:

"On the other hand you have the great majority of hobbyists out there (fewer on RF) that will never research the finer details about their hobby. Often the only way to reach them is to make things quick and simple and in terms they'll pay attention to. I'm not suggesting in any way that these people are stupid or incapable of learning, they usually just don't care about it."

I'm still here Buddy, reading and learning. I'm so glad I asked the question about denitrification on the first thread, because I'm not one who just wants to hear something and accept it. Don't get me wrong, I am easily convinced and very open minded, but I am one those few who just thirsts for knowledge. I love to know why things happen as they do...You never know, I may not be a scientist, but I may discover something the "brains" of the field missed out in their extensive calculations, in depth researches, and debates that can improve or add some positive outcome to this wonderful hobby we all try to enjoy.

 

[Krish]

Hey, I have a thought back to the main subject of bio-balls outcompeting LR. If there is any truth to the product, what about using bio-slab in a wet/dry submerged underneath the bio-balls in very close proximity. I guess using bio-slab is basically the same thing we discussed earlier when we said about using LR underneath bio-balls submerged in a wet/dry, just a different "product" if you will. But I've read, which again can be good marketing strategy for the less educated, that bio-slab (as used in the bio-rocker) completes the loophole in wet/dry's by providing an anaerobic zone for nitrates to be converted to nitrogen gas. If this is true, then LR (similar to bio-slab) submerged underneath bio-balls should work to an extent...Right?...Wrong again? LOL. Boy I must be really slow or really gullable or something, but the whole idea behind using bio-slab with bio-balls or the bio-rocker seems like a possible means of completing the nitrogen cycle, from ammonia-nitrite-nitrate-nitrogen gas in an aquarium...or maybe not so much on a full blown reef, but on a smaller scale (FO or fOWLR) to aid with reducing nitrates. If the bio-rocker actually works then you should be able to receive some benefits in nitrate reduction using LR in a wet/dry, but then again to what degree. If anyone thinks it would be a good experiment to conduct, I'll order the thing and be the guinea pig.
Here is a link to the bio-rocker and bio-slab incase anyone hasn't seen it. http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=8178&N=2004+22768
http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=4169&N=2004+113804

 

[clayswim]

Close proximity for us and close proximity for bacteria are two different things unfortunately. Also, bio-slab has a very limited amount of anaerobic space when used underneath bio-balls due to the extremely high level of oxygen present.

In order for bacteria to reduce nitrates you must first create an anaerobic environment, one without oxygen. Much of the time this is actually done by the bacteria itself inside either rocks or another porous substance. It happens because aerobic bacteria use up the available oxygen leaving nothing for the bacteria deeper inside; which forces those colonies to break-up nitrates as a new source of oxygen. This is one reason why proximity plays such an important role. You can have a tank full of live rock running a wet/dry with 50ppm of nitrates. This happens because the environment, for the most part, hasn't been made for anaerobic activity in the rocks. Now there is some denitrification that happens in other ways to be sure, but what we're looking for is an adequate amount to keep our levels as close to zero as possible. The reason the bio-slab wouldn't work very well is the same reason live rock doesn't work very well with a wet/dry system. The bio-balls will take over nitrification leaving smaller numbers of bacteria to colonize the bio-slab. Keeping in mind that these aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are often the same, you see the problem it creates.

The discussion of how complicated all of this gets is right; we haven't even begun to scratch the surface (I'm not even sure I want to, lol). For instance, it hasn't been mentioned that denitrification not only converts nitrates into nitrogen gas (eventually), but it also converts them back into nitrites. These nitrites are either broke-down further into gas by anaerobes, or they're converted back into nitrates by the aerobic bacteria. This is why denitrifier reactors will dump nitrites into your water if the effluent rate is too high.

Clayton

 

[MikeS]

I fell victim to the same thing about 5 years ago...right at the peak of the sandbed craze, I was fed enough exaggerations and oversimplifications on that topic that I bought into the idea wholesale...I have learned much since then and I'm seeing how I was led down a potentially bad path due to all of that...

Nikki...I absolutely can't believe you were not all over me like a cheap suit about that statement, I was totally waiting for your abuse on that one, you really dissapoint me.... :lol:

How's this for oversimplification - bacterial population size is based on the available food source

Hey, thanks for that sparkling jewel of wisdom insight there, Captian Obvious....you are definately an asset to the hobby :lol:
Sorry Nikki, I felt I needed to administer some sarcasim and abuse there, lord knows I owe you some..... Well that ought to get her going...my phone should be ringing any minute now....3...2...1.... "You Bas***d!!! *CLICK*" :lol:

Anyway my question on the bacterial population thing, nutrients are the primary limiter, and the popultions are always in a state of flux due to countless varibles, but I wonder typically how close to the maximum amount these levels tend to run in comparison to available nutrients? As a very simple examle, would a system using a wet/dry and live rock have bacteria population figures closer to a maxium level based on available nutrients compared to the exact same tank, same nutrient level, but minus the W/D? I'm looking for a very gross generalization here of course....

You have to be careful when getting into the long explanations to though Mike. Some of this stuff is very difficult, makes my head spin just trying to remember it, You dont want to loose folks either. I guess somewhere between the simplified version and the detailed explanation is the sweetspot, I try to stay with in that zone as best as I can, but it can be tough sometimes.

I hear ya my friend...I remember those exact headaces you are talking from my college days...I had to take lots of classes on biology and such, but that was many moons and many six-packs ago, I've forgotten most of it...yeah the sweet spot between the generalizations and the nasty details is what I'm looking for from you guys, and don't worry, as soon as those headaches come back, I'll stop reading... :lol:

So anyway if you two a finished singing kumbya to each other (ROFL)

C'mon Mike join in the singing.... "outcompetition is killing the rocks o lord,... kumbya...outcompetition is killing the rocks,...kumbya...." :lol:

MikeS

 

[Krish]

Well, Clay, that's what I though the response would be from all of the previous reading...Just thought I'd add some other angles to the subject. Those darn bio-balls seem like a case and a half, but they definately do a great job at doing what they do best (converting ammonia-nitrite-nitrates) at such a super fast rate. Too bad you couldn't factor something into the equation along with the bio-balls, to remove nitrates from the system just as quickly as ammonia and nitrites are converted. I guess that's why the inventors of such products like the bio-rocker make it a consumers dream come true when you think of buying a product with the reliability of a wet/dry system (coverting ammonia and nitrites at a super fast rate) alongside with nitrate reduction capabilities of supposedly the same speed creating very low to no detectable nitrate levels.

 

[clayswim]

As a very simple examle, would a system using a wet/dry and live rock have bacteria population figures closer to a maxium level based on available nutrients compared to the exact same tank, same nutrient level, but minus the W/D?

I understand what you're getting at, but in a way it's sort of a moot question. Both systems create a scenario where ammonia and nitrites are undetectable. Of course both are still present in the water, but not concentrated enough to cause physical distress. Wet/dry filters rapidly remove them because of fast turnover and available oxygen, but live rock removes them much in the way nature does it (nature uses other forms as well). However, in both cases you have adequately low levels.

I'm looking for a very gross generalization here of course....

Hey now, that's how I got us here in the first place

Just thought I'd add some other angles to the subject.

Keep them coming, that's what we're all here for. None of us fully realize all the angles to this stuff, so talking about them is helpful.

Those darn bio-balls seem like a case and a half, but they definately do a great job at doing what they do best (converting ammonia-nitrite-nitrates) at such a super fast rate.

That's part of the problem, they're really too effective. For years they were thought to be the perfect biological filter; back in the days when most fish keepers assumed nitrates were harmless. They're not only quick and effective, but can be easily moved as well.

Too bad you couldn't factor something into the equation along with the bio-balls, to remove nitrates from the system just as quickly as ammonia and nitrites are converted.

Because of the way denitrification works there's unfortunately no quick way to go about it; on a large scale anyway. Mother Nature often works at a very slow and steady pace, and sometimes we just have to learn to live with that fact.

Clayton

 

[Krish]

Well, another thing I thought about was that it is said to use atleast 1-2 lbs of live rock per gallon of water. Is this based on the ratio of biological filtration area needed per gallon of water to attain, and possibly maintain, stability in an aquarium where people go on the assumption that they can house 1-2 inches of fish per gallon? If so then what about those with very small bioloads (eg. 1-2 inches of fish per 10 gal). I know that every species of fish is different and some produce more waste than others (like predatory fish) , but what do you base it on? It's the same thing with wet/drys and bio-balls...You got so many bio-balls provided per wet/dry and sump size depending on the volume of water in your aquarium. Can too much biological surface area create higher levels of nitrates or unstablility or can you never over filtrate in this manner? It's the same question I had with uv sterlizers. If the same volume of water is going to pass by the uv light at the same speed, then why can't a wattage of say 8 watts sterilize and aquarium of 200 gallons when it can an aquarium of 30 gallons? Water is water right? Just a few more points I'm trying to throw out there.

 

[clayswim]

Well, another thing I thought about was that it is said to use atleast 1-2 lbs of live rock per gallon of water.

That's a good question now that we're using rocks for biological filtration. The 1-2 pounds per gallon is more a measurement of how much rock it will take to fill an aquarium for looks rather than biological load. The efficiency of nitrification depends on how porous the rock is. For example, these days the rock out of Haiti tends to be extremely dense; it therefore has far less capacity than rock out of a place like the Solomon Islands. Normal premium Fiji rock is also rather dense compared to rocks like Pukani and Tonga Branch because water doesn't flow through it as well. So the biological capacity of live rock is very dependant on it's porosity.

Can too much biological surface area create higher levels of nitrates or unstablility or can you never over filtrate in this manner?

This goes along with what MikeS was talking about, which is bacterial populations. Basically it doesn't matter how many bio-balls or live rock you have, because the bacteria will only multiply to the point where their food runs out. Since nitrates originally come from ammonia, the amount of nitrates for the most part is dependant on the amount of ammonia created in the water. Since the biological filter must deplete the ammonia nearly completely, a sized or oversized filter will have the same impact.

The reason UV filters are sized the way they are has more to do with water turnover. If you place an 8-watt sterilizer on a 200-gallon tank at 400GPH you'll only turn the tank's capacity over 2X an hour. Jump to a 25-watt and you can run 800GPH with the same kill effect. That takes the turnover from 2X to 4X, which of course means a greater exposure to the water.

Clayton

 

[Krish]

Previously posted by Clay

these days the rock out of Haiti tends to be extremely dense

Sort of takes after their people. We got a lot of them hanging around here in the Bahamas (LOL).

The reason UV filters are sized the way they are has more to do with water turnover. If you place an 8-watt sterilizer on a 200-gallon tank at 400GPH you'll only turn the tank's capacity over 2X an hour. Jump to a 25-watt and you can run 800GPH with the same kill effect. That takes the turnover from 2X to 4X, which of course means a greater exposure to the water.

Makes sense...never thought about it that way. I guess I was thinking the uv sterilizer worked like a denitrator that regardless of the wattage (in this case) I thought the water flow had to be all of the same flow. I'm learning a lot here!

 

[Krish]

O.k I got another one to throw at ya. Bio-balls basically need no maintenance. Just leave them in there and let her rip (except for the occasional wash off of a few at a time in used tank water to remove big clumps of particles, but usually the trickle flow is enough to brush them off). What about refugiums or LR in a sump? Do they need maintainence? I mean because if you think about it, basically they are aquariums in aquariums and you do water changes, siphoning the substrate, turkey blasting etc in the main display tank, what about in the sump and what about water flow using powerheads in the sump? If so, sounds like double the work LOL. If the LR is going to remove nitrates at a slow rate as compared to the conversion of ammonia to nitrites to nitrates, and you still have to do water changes on top of that, and then clean your sump regularily (if that is the case) on top of that, to some, they may say to hell with that, and just get a wet dry and do their weekly water changes and hope for the best...Just throwing out scenarios again LOL

 

[clayswim]

What about refugiums or LR in a sump?

Actually live rock eventually clogs no matter where it's at. Since our tanks have a much larger bio-waste than the ocean, and our rocks do more work than they do in a natural reef; the rock will fill up with bio-matter after a number of years. This is where "cooking" your rock comes from. If you take your rock out and place it in a dark tank with no extra bio-waste it will eventually catch back up and clean itself out. Actually it's mostly microbes that are doing the work. In time the rock will be good as new and ready for use. You can also literally cook the rock too, but it kills everything off. The best prevention for clogged rocks is plenty of good skimming to keep waste to a minimum and good water flow to blow the waste into the water column where the skimmer can get at it.

and you still have to do water changes on top of that

A lot of people don't do regular water changes. If your rock is keeping nitrate levels low enough, and your skimmer is keeping your water clean enough; then the only real reason for water changes is to replenish major and minor trace elements. That doesn't require large-scale water changes that are sometimes necessary when using a wet/dry.

Clayton

 

[Krish]

Fair enough.

 

[MikeS]

I understand what you're getting at, but in a way it's sort of a moot question.

Moot? I don't think so, I think that how close bacterial populations hover towards the maximum value in a LR vs LR+W/D system can give us a good deal of insight into the basics of what is occuring here...

Both systems create a scenario where ammonia and nitrites are undetectable. Of course both are still present in the water, but not concentrated enough to cause physical distress.

Agreed....both can keep ammonia and nitrite levels in safe ranges....

Wet/dry filters rapidly remove them because of fast turnover and available oxygen, but live rock removes them much in the way nature does it (nature uses other forms as well).

hmmm....now we are treading on some thin ice here...the bacteria species, basic biological processes, ect, that are taking place in the wet/dry are the same as what's occuring on the LR, the only difference from the LR is the more attractive environment and the boost the additional O2 the W/D provides...They are both very "natural" processes...A similar event can be observed on the wild reef....think of a shallow reef exposed at low tide with waves crashing across it...smae thing, yes?

We enter a dangerous area when we start to compare our little glass boxes to the wild reef, really these two ecosystems have so very little in common...

However, in both cases you have adequately low levels.

now that I'm back off my soapbox, agreed... :lol:

MikeS

 

[Krish]

Just to let you all know, if you need some on hands testing done just let me know what you need. As you know, I live in the Bahamas and a day doesn't go by, no matter what, that I don't see the ocean. I can look out of my window and see water. Moreover, I spend ALOT of time in the water. There's nothing in life I enjoy more. I can get some water parameters for you'll from shallow water all the way up to 6000 ft! The edge of the ocean only takes about 15 minutes from land! I can get some parameters next to a healthy reef at different depths to see how light and water flow plays a part, pretty much anything you can imagine I can do. Just let me know if you'll think of anything. Testing equipment is nothing to come across. One of my best friends owns the LPS and I can get whatever I don't have from him. I don't know how much the water parameters will differ because it is all still one huge body of water, but you never know. The point is I'll be right here if you need some testing done.

 

[NaH2O]

Nikki...I absolutely can't believe you were not all over me like a cheap suit about that statement, I was totally waiting for your abuse on that one, you really dissapoint me.... :lol:

Why kick a man when he's down???

I figured when you fell off the log, that would be embarassment enough .

Hey, thanks for that sparkling jewel of wisdom insight there, Captian Obvious....you are definately an asset to the hobby :lol:
Sorry Nikki, I felt I needed to administer some sarcasim and abuse there, lord knows I owe you some..... Well that ought to get her going...my phone should be ringing any minute now....3...2...1.... "You Bas***d!!! *CLICK*" :lol:

I thought the silent treatment would have been the better approach this time. Oh, by the way, next time you quote me, can you at least spell my nick right?

I wonder typically how close to the maximum amount these levels tend to run in comparison to available nutrients?

I'm pretty sure these populations would be in a constant state of flux anyway. There would be different variables involved. Their environment changes, and sustaining populations when neighboring bacterial colonies might have to compete for an available food source/nutrient. How could one determine what the maximum amount of levels would be? Your fish happens to poop more in a week, then there would be a change in bacterial populations, right?

For instance, it hasn't been mentioned that denitrification not only converts nitrates into nitrogen gas (eventually), but it also converts them back into nitrites. These nitrites are either broke-down further into gas by anaerobes, or they're converted back into nitrates by the aerobic bacteria.

I've had a long day, and I'm tired, but this might be an oversimplification. Other gases such as nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, too (looked that one up ). There are still more off-shoots in denitrification, other than just the nitrites back to nitrates....can't it go back to ammonium, too? Also, I thought I remember a discussion awhile back, or could be my heat induced delusion, but can't some bacteria evenutally just cycle food to itself? The end products get used by the same bacteria as food again?